Marken and Shaffer (Exp Brain Res 235:1835–1842, 2017) have argued that the power law of movement, which is generally thought to reflect the mechanisms that produce movement, is actually an example of what Powers (Psychol Rev 85:417–435, 1978) dubbed a behavioral illusion, where an observed relationship between variables is seen as revealing something about the mechanisms that produce a behavior when, in fact, it does not. Zago et al. (Exp Brain Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0022-017-5108-z, 2017) and Taylor (Exp Brain Res, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5192-8, 2018) have “reappraised” this argument, claiming that it is based on logical, mathematical, statistical and theoretical errors. In the present paper we answer these claims and show that the power law of movement is, indeed, an example of a behavioral illusion. However, we also explain how this apparently negative finding can point the study of movement in a new and more productive direction, with research aimed at understanding movement in terms of its purposes rather than its causes.
Power law of movement Cause–effect model Control model Behavioral illusion Controlled variables
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Gribble PL, Ostry DJ (1996) Origins of the power law relation between movement velocity and curvature: modeling the effects of muscle mechanics and limb dynamics. J Neurophysiol 76:2853–2860CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Maoz U, Portugaly E, Flash T, Weiss Y (2006) Noise and the 2/3 power law. Adv Neural Inf Proc Syst 18:851–858Google Scholar
Marken RS (1988) The nature of behavior: control as fact and theory. Behav Sci 33:196–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marken RS (2014a) Testing for controlled variables: a model-based approach to determining the perceptual basis of behavior. Atten Percept Psychophys 76:255–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Marken RS (2014b) Doing research on purpose: a control theory approach to experimental psychology. New View, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
Marken RS, Powers WT (1989) Random-walk chemotaxis: trial-and-error as a control process. Behav Neurosci 103:1348–1355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Marken R, Shaffer D (2017) The power law of movement: an example of a behavioral illusion. Exp Brain Res 235:1835–1842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pollick F, Sapiro G (1997) Constant affine velocity predicts the 1/3 power law of planar motion perception generation. Vision Res 37:347–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Powers WT (1978) Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology. Psychol Rev 85:417–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powers WT (2008) Living control systems III: the fact of control. Benchmark Publications, BloomfieldGoogle Scholar
Shaffer DM, Krauchunas SM, Eddy M, McBeath MK (2004) How dogs navigate to catch frisbees. Psychol Sci 15:437–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Shaffer DM, Marken RS, Dolgov I, Maynor AB (2013) Chasin’ choppers: using unpredictable trajectories to test theories of object interception. Atten Percept Psychol 75:1496–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer DM, Marken RS, Dolgov I, Maynor AB (2015) Catching objects thrown to oneself: testing the generality of a control strategy for object interception. Perception 44:400–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar